Sounds like the thesis of Richard Hanania's book, Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy: How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers, and Foreign Governments Shape American Foreign Policy. And I think he was on the podcast to discuss it.
The late biologist-psychologist Robert Trivers was brilliant on the subject of warfare's miscalculations and follies. And over here in Europe, the leaders- who were long playing Sweet Alice to his Ben Bolt--are waking up to the realisation that the US President is not a serious person, that he is out of his intellectual and political depth on the world stage, and should be regarded accordingly.
I knew Bob a little--and didn't realize he had died this week. He was a character. And he made very important contributions to evolutionary psychology. As for those European leaders: I wonder if enlightenment is only now dawning on them or it's just that things have gotten so bad they have to finally start acting on the enlightenment (at least occasionally) rather than always surrendering to Trump's intimidation.
Trivers was indeed-and not uncontroversial. I think with the Europeans it's both. The German newspapers don't report verbatim all the nutty-vicious ranting and raving on Truth Social or understand too well how threats can work in big real estate deals and casino operation. But the demand for a NATO backed naval expedition to the Strait of Hormuz and the accusation COWARDS and vows of revenge finally hit a nerve, as well as maybe a funny bone or two.
I think - in principle at least - it is even possible to have a *win-win* outcome as a result of a conflict. For instance, if two countries have invested heavily in fortifying a disputed border and a small skirmish forces a permanent negotiation that lasts in long term peace. In the Pig War of 1859 the only casualty was a pig, but the escalation itself lead to settlement of a long standing and expensive dispute between the US and UK.
I do agree with your core point that incentives of ruling leader or regime differ widely from what is best for the populace. That's true in all matters but maybe the most tragic in war.
Yes, win-win is possible even in war. In fact, if the Iranian goal of increased regional stability--i.e. true assurance that Iran won't get attacked again by the US or Israel--were realized as a result of this war, I think that would be good for America and could wind up being good for Israel, even though Israel now resists it.
TLDR: War is almost always negative sum. Even if there is a "winner," that side frequently loses as much as or more than it gains. And the losses by the loser will usually outweigh any gains by the winner. So, there should be a mutually beneficial deal that could avoid the war. Of coure, as Bob points out, there is the principal-agent problem. Sometimes a political leader might gain from the war even if his (or her, but mostly his) country suffers net losses.
Let’s look at the evolution of war. Suppose it’s a million years ago. There’s a tribe living here, and beyond the mountain, there’s another tribe. They are not friends. One tribe attacks at night, kills all the men, and enslaves the rest. A clear win-lose outcome. For millions of years, human brains were shaped by these conditions. The program of destroying a hostile tribe (a.k.a. war) is deeply embedded in our genes and undoubtedly operates on numerous levels of the mind.
A million years have passed. In the last 10,000 years, everything has changed dramatically. There are no more tribes, and even the concept of a nation is very vague. Exterminating each other, seizing territories, and destroying infrastructure leads to nothing particularly meaningful except ruin and suffering. Well, that and fluctuations in the approval ratings of specific leaders, which in the long term has no effect, since leaders will be replaced soon anyway.
However, the instincts remain the same as before 10 000 years ago. They operate outside of logic—in the minds of rulers, military officials, elites, propagandists, and voters alike. The destruction of a hostile tribe is still justified in our minds. Even though there is neither hostility nor a tribe anymore, and it’s practically impossible to destroy it.
It would be great if people became skeptical of their leaders who start wars. Also there’s a sense that war operates in everyone’s minds on multiple levels, and this bias needs to start being condemned as early as in school textbooks.
Yes, an interesting question is: To what extent are we now plagued by features of the human mind that evolved when many conflicts were closer to being zero-sum than the average war of today? It's a hard question to get to the bottom of, in part because so much of the evidence is obscured by the mists of prehistory.
Another excellent article. Thank you, Bob. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in our Global village and the 24/7 news-stream, it is not just 'our' losses that count and this should enter the calculus too. Iranian lives matter. Gazan lives matter. And if they don't, they bloody well should. Not only from the ethical side, but the long-term consequences that come back to bite the aggressor and in the end, all of us. The time when Rome could wipe Corinth off the maps because they were not sufficiently deferential and Carthage because they might pose a threat and get away with it, are gone I think. The horrible shit happening on out screen
Yeah, the whole history of US-Iran antipathy--starting with, say, US support for the 1953 coup that deposed Iran's prime minister--is a history of things that were considered 'wins' by one side but that, sometime down the road, helped motivate the other side to score its own 'win'. And so on...
Sounds like the thesis of Richard Hanania's book, Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy: How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers, and Foreign Governments Shape American Foreign Policy. And I think he was on the podcast to discuss it.
The late biologist-psychologist Robert Trivers was brilliant on the subject of warfare's miscalculations and follies. And over here in Europe, the leaders- who were long playing Sweet Alice to his Ben Bolt--are waking up to the realisation that the US President is not a serious person, that he is out of his intellectual and political depth on the world stage, and should be regarded accordingly.
I knew Bob a little--and didn't realize he had died this week. He was a character. And he made very important contributions to evolutionary psychology. As for those European leaders: I wonder if enlightenment is only now dawning on them or it's just that things have gotten so bad they have to finally start acting on the enlightenment (at least occasionally) rather than always surrendering to Trump's intimidation.
Trivers was indeed-and not uncontroversial. I think with the Europeans it's both. The German newspapers don't report verbatim all the nutty-vicious ranting and raving on Truth Social or understand too well how threats can work in big real estate deals and casino operation. But the demand for a NATO backed naval expedition to the Strait of Hormuz and the accusation COWARDS and vows of revenge finally hit a nerve, as well as maybe a funny bone or two.
I think - in principle at least - it is even possible to have a *win-win* outcome as a result of a conflict. For instance, if two countries have invested heavily in fortifying a disputed border and a small skirmish forces a permanent negotiation that lasts in long term peace. In the Pig War of 1859 the only casualty was a pig, but the escalation itself lead to settlement of a long standing and expensive dispute between the US and UK.
I do agree with your core point that incentives of ruling leader or regime differ widely from what is best for the populace. That's true in all matters but maybe the most tragic in war.
Yes, win-win is possible even in war. In fact, if the Iranian goal of increased regional stability--i.e. true assurance that Iran won't get attacked again by the US or Israel--were realized as a result of this war, I think that would be good for America and could wind up being good for Israel, even though Israel now resists it.
TLDR: War is almost always negative sum. Even if there is a "winner," that side frequently loses as much as or more than it gains. And the losses by the loser will usually outweigh any gains by the winner. So, there should be a mutually beneficial deal that could avoid the war. Of coure, as Bob points out, there is the principal-agent problem. Sometimes a political leader might gain from the war even if his (or her, but mostly his) country suffers net losses.
Let’s look at the evolution of war. Suppose it’s a million years ago. There’s a tribe living here, and beyond the mountain, there’s another tribe. They are not friends. One tribe attacks at night, kills all the men, and enslaves the rest. A clear win-lose outcome. For millions of years, human brains were shaped by these conditions. The program of destroying a hostile tribe (a.k.a. war) is deeply embedded in our genes and undoubtedly operates on numerous levels of the mind.
A million years have passed. In the last 10,000 years, everything has changed dramatically. There are no more tribes, and even the concept of a nation is very vague. Exterminating each other, seizing territories, and destroying infrastructure leads to nothing particularly meaningful except ruin and suffering. Well, that and fluctuations in the approval ratings of specific leaders, which in the long term has no effect, since leaders will be replaced soon anyway.
However, the instincts remain the same as before 10 000 years ago. They operate outside of logic—in the minds of rulers, military officials, elites, propagandists, and voters alike. The destruction of a hostile tribe is still justified in our minds. Even though there is neither hostility nor a tribe anymore, and it’s practically impossible to destroy it.
It would be great if people became skeptical of their leaders who start wars. Also there’s a sense that war operates in everyone’s minds on multiple levels, and this bias needs to start being condemned as early as in school textbooks.
Yes, an interesting question is: To what extent are we now plagued by features of the human mind that evolved when many conflicts were closer to being zero-sum than the average war of today? It's a hard question to get to the bottom of, in part because so much of the evidence is obscured by the mists of prehistory.
Another excellent article. Thank you, Bob. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in our Global village and the 24/7 news-stream, it is not just 'our' losses that count and this should enter the calculus too. Iranian lives matter. Gazan lives matter. And if they don't, they bloody well should. Not only from the ethical side, but the long-term consequences that come back to bite the aggressor and in the end, all of us. The time when Rome could wipe Corinth off the maps because they were not sufficiently deferential and Carthage because they might pose a threat and get away with it, are gone I think. The horrible shit happening on out screen
Yeah, the whole history of US-Iran antipathy--starting with, say, US support for the 1953 coup that deposed Iran's prime minister--is a history of things that were considered 'wins' by one side but that, sometime down the road, helped motivate the other side to score its own 'win'. And so on...